niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
CONTEXT: Firstly, there's a chance Wednesday would sense them coming, and would get away. They couldn't have a decent conversation then, and Mr. World made it very clear they wanted to part on respectful terms, having made their proposal. However, in the room Wednesday and Shadow were kept, Media, World, and Technical Boy were able to enter unobstructed, through the only exit, so it was very much their ground. Secondly, it was a show of power. Wednesday is on the wrong side of the law (after the robbery), but the new gods aren't - or at least, they're useful to the law, with the satellites and all the like. They wanted to show Wednesday that they had the capability to track him if the wanted, and that he had something, namely the whole of law enforcement, to be aware of. Thirdly, I think it's the matter of not getting their hands dirty. Gods, both in the novel and in the series so far, operate through proxies - Wednesday has Shadow, Technical Boy had those dumb henchmen. It's possible (though unlikely) that the New Gods don't want to be on the wrong side of law enforcement as well, and the law enforcement was looking for the bank robber anyway. In this case Mr. World simply used the policy in place of his own men, but disposed of them as they became unnecessary (which could be seen as yet another show of power).  <sep>  Q: Why did Mr.World need to involve the police? A: They couldn't have a decent conversation then, and Mr. World made it very clear they wanted to part on respectful terms, having made their proposal  Q: Why did Mr World have to be so violent? A: Mr. World simply used the policy in place of his own men, but disposed of them as they became unnecessary (which could be seen as yet another show of power  Q: Why not just go to the motel room? A: They wanted to show Wednesday that they had the capability to track him if the wanted, and that he had something, namely the whole of law enforcement  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did this achieve?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Why the delay? Probably for cinematic effect. The Unsullied are trained to follow orders without question. They have been known to selflessly sacrifice their life without hesitation if that is what was ordered. In the books the Unsullied attack and the dragon attack happened almost simultaneously. The Whip? The whip that was given to Dany was a special one. It told the Unsullied who their new master was. So they followed the holder of that whip, and that whip alone.  <sep>  Q: How do the Unsullied prioritize their orders?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Why the delay? Probably for cinematic effect. The Unsullied are trained to follow orders without question. They have been known to selflessly sacrifice their life without hesitation if that is what was ordered. In the books the Unsullied attack and the dragon attack happened almost simultaneously. The Whip? The whip that was given to Dany was a special one. It told the Unsullied who their new master was. So they followed the holder of that whip, and that whip alone.  <sep>  Q: How do the Unsullied prioritize their orders? A: The Unsullied are trained to follow orders without question  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why is there a delay before the initial attack?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Why the delay? Probably for cinematic effect. The Unsullied are trained to follow orders without question. They have been known to selflessly sacrifice their life without hesitation if that is what was ordered. In the books the Unsullied attack and the dragon attack happened almost simultaneously. The Whip? The whip that was given to Dany was a special one. It told the Unsullied who their new master was. So they followed the holder of that whip, and that whip alone.  <sep>  Q: How do the Unsullied prioritize their orders? A: The Unsullied are trained to follow orders without question  Q: Why is there a delay before the initial attack? A: In the books the Unsullied attack and the dragon attack happened almost simultaneously  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are they motivated by revenge?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Why the delay? Probably for cinematic effect. The Unsullied are trained to follow orders without question. They have been known to selflessly sacrifice their life without hesitation if that is what was ordered. In the books the Unsullied attack and the dragon attack happened almost simultaneously. The Whip? The whip that was given to Dany was a special one. It told the Unsullied who their new master was. So they followed the holder of that whip, and that whip alone.  <sep>  Q: How do the Unsullied prioritize their orders? A: The Unsullied are trained to follow orders without question  Q: Why is there a delay before the initial attack? A: In the books the Unsullied attack and the dragon attack happened almost simultaneously  Q: Are they motivated by revenge? A: hey have been known to selflessly sacrifice their life without hesitation if that is what was ordered  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why would they do that?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Why the delay? Probably for cinematic effect. The Unsullied are trained to follow orders without question. They have been known to selflessly sacrifice their life without hesitation if that is what was ordered. In the books the Unsullied attack and the dragon attack happened almost simultaneously. The Whip? The whip that was given to Dany was a special one. It told the Unsullied who their new master was. So they followed the holder of that whip, and that whip alone.  <sep>  Q: How do the Unsullied prioritize their orders? A: The Unsullied are trained to follow orders without question  Q: Why is there a delay before the initial attack? A: In the books the Unsullied attack and the dragon attack happened almost simultaneously  Q: Are they motivated by revenge? A: hey have been known to selflessly sacrifice their life without hesitation if that is what was ordered  Q: Why would they do that? A: he Unsullied are trained to follow orders without question  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Couldn't one of the Daenery's countermand the order?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Why the delay? Probably for cinematic effect. The Unsullied are trained to follow orders without question. They have been known to selflessly sacrifice their life without hesitation if that is what was ordered. In the books the Unsullied attack and the dragon attack happened almost simultaneously. The Whip? The whip that was given to Dany was a special one. It told the Unsullied who their new master was. So they followed the holder of that whip, and that whip alone.  <sep>  Q: How do the Unsullied prioritize their orders? A: The Unsullied are trained to follow orders without question  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: how do they train them?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The point of the scene was to show that she has the power to command others when she makes physical contact and that Wolverine doesn't know she has powers. She denies having power because she doesn't want him to know. She's trying to manipulate him for Stryker and Sabretooth so if Wolverine found out it would ruin the plan. EDIT: modified answer to remove mention of Wolverine being immune to Kayla's powers since it's unclear whether he is immune or not.  <sep>  Q: What was the point of the bridge scene?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The point of the scene was to show that she has the power to command others when she makes physical contact and that Wolverine doesn't know she has powers. She denies having power because she doesn't want him to know. She's trying to manipulate him for Stryker and Sabretooth so if Wolverine found out it would ruin the plan. EDIT: modified answer to remove mention of Wolverine being immune to Kayla's powers since it's unclear whether he is immune or not.  <sep>  Q: What was the point of the bridge scene? A: The point of the scene was to show that she has the power to command others  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What can you tell me about Wolverine?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The point of the scene was to show that she has the power to command others when she makes physical contact and that Wolverine doesn't know she has powers. She denies having power because she doesn't want him to know. She's trying to manipulate him for Stryker and Sabretooth so if Wolverine found out it would ruin the plan. EDIT: modified answer to remove mention of Wolverine being immune to Kayla's powers since it's unclear whether he is immune or not.  <sep>  Q: What was the point of the bridge scene? A: The point of the scene was to show that she has the power to command others  Q: What can you tell me about Wolverine? A: Wolverine doesn't know she has powers  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else does Wolverine not know?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The point of the scene was to show that she has the power to command others when she makes physical contact and that Wolverine doesn't know she has powers. She denies having power because she doesn't want him to know. She's trying to manipulate him for Stryker and Sabretooth so if Wolverine found out it would ruin the plan. EDIT: modified answer to remove mention of Wolverine being immune to Kayla's powers since it's unclear whether he is immune or not.  <sep>  Q: What was the point of the bridge scene? A: The point of the scene was to show that she has the power to command others  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did she get this power?
Output: No
CONTEXT: At the beginning of the Back to Earth special, we see Lister reading to a memorial to Kochanski, with the implication being that she is dead. Later in the special, the kids Lister talks to on the bus talk about the events of "Series 9", which was never actually written, shot, or aired. They tell him that Kryten lied about Kochanski being sucked out of an airlock. The truth, according to the kids, is that she was tired of watching Lister wasting his life drinking and went off on her own in Blue Midget. Kryten told Lister she had died in order to spare his feelings (or perhaps because he was jealous of Lister's feelings for Kochanski). At the end of the Back To Earth specials, Lister resists the hallucinated Kochanski, saying that he knows that the real her is out there somewhere and that he intends to find her.  <sep>  Q: What happened to Kochanski between season 8 and 10 of Red Dwarf?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: At the beginning of the Back to Earth special, we see Lister reading to a memorial to Kochanski, with the implication being that she is dead. Later in the special, the kids Lister talks to on the bus talk about the events of "Series 9", which was never actually written, shot, or aired. They tell him that Kryten lied about Kochanski being sucked out of an airlock. The truth, according to the kids, is that she was tired of watching Lister wasting his life drinking and went off on her own in Blue Midget. Kryten told Lister she had died in order to spare his feelings (or perhaps because he was jealous of Lister's feelings for Kochanski). At the end of the Back To Earth specials, Lister resists the hallucinated Kochanski, saying that he knows that the real her is out there somewhere and that he intends to find her.  <sep>  Q: What happened to Kochanski between season 8 and 10 of Red Dwarf? A: At the beginning of the Back to Earth special, we see Lister reading to a memorial to Kochanski, with the implication being that she is dead  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Were they ever all reunited?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: At the beginning of the Back to Earth special, we see Lister reading to a memorial to Kochanski, with the implication being that she is dead. Later in the special, the kids Lister talks to on the bus talk about the events of "Series 9", which was never actually written, shot, or aired. They tell him that Kryten lied about Kochanski being sucked out of an airlock. The truth, according to the kids, is that she was tired of watching Lister wasting his life drinking and went off on her own in Blue Midget. Kryten told Lister she had died in order to spare his feelings (or perhaps because he was jealous of Lister's feelings for Kochanski). At the end of the Back To Earth specials, Lister resists the hallucinated Kochanski, saying that he knows that the real her is out there somewhere and that he intends to find her.  <sep>  Q: What happened to Kochanski between season 8 and 10 of Red Dwarf? A: At the beginning of the Back to Earth special, we see Lister reading to a memorial to Kochanski, with the implication being that she is dead  Q: Were they ever all reunited? A: she was tired of watching Lister wasting his life drinking and went off on her own in Blue Midget  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Oh that is sad. Do you know if there will be another season?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: At the beginning of the Back to Earth special, we see Lister reading to a memorial to Kochanski, with the implication being that she is dead. Later in the special, the kids Lister talks to on the bus talk about the events of "Series 9", which was never actually written, shot, or aired. They tell him that Kryten lied about Kochanski being sucked out of an airlock. The truth, according to the kids, is that she was tired of watching Lister wasting his life drinking and went off on her own in Blue Midget. Kryten told Lister she had died in order to spare his feelings (or perhaps because he was jealous of Lister's feelings for Kochanski). At the end of the Back To Earth specials, Lister resists the hallucinated Kochanski, saying that he knows that the real her is out there somewhere and that he intends to find her.  <sep>  Q: What happened to Kochanski between season 8 and 10 of Red Dwarf? A: At the beginning of the Back to Earth special, we see Lister reading to a memorial to Kochanski, with the implication being that she is dead  Q: Were they ever all reunited? A: she was tired of watching Lister wasting his life drinking and went off on her own in Blue Midget  Q: Oh that is sad. Do you know if there will be another season? A: At the end of the Back To Earth specials, Lister resists the hallucinated Kochanski, saying that he knows that the real her is out there somewhere  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How did Kochanski die?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: At the beginning of the Back to Earth special, we see Lister reading to a memorial to Kochanski, with the implication being that she is dead. Later in the special, the kids Lister talks to on the bus talk about the events of "Series 9", which was never actually written, shot, or aired. They tell him that Kryten lied about Kochanski being sucked out of an airlock. The truth, according to the kids, is that she was tired of watching Lister wasting his life drinking and went off on her own in Blue Midget. Kryten told Lister she had died in order to spare his feelings (or perhaps because he was jealous of Lister's feelings for Kochanski). At the end of the Back To Earth specials, Lister resists the hallucinated Kochanski, saying that he knows that the real her is out there somewhere and that he intends to find her.  <sep>  Q: What happened to Kochanski between season 8 and 10 of Red Dwarf? A: At the beginning of the Back to Earth special, we see Lister reading to a memorial to Kochanski, with the implication being that she is dead  Q: Were they ever all reunited? A: she was tired of watching Lister wasting his life drinking and went off on her own in Blue Midget  Q: Oh that is sad. Do you know if there will be another season? A: At the end of the Back To Earth specials, Lister resists the hallucinated Kochanski, saying that he knows that the real her is out there somewhere  Q: How did Kochanski die? A: They tell him that Kryten lied about Kochanski being sucked out of an airlock  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So if Kryten did lie, is it possible that Kochanski is still alive?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: At the beginning of the Back to Earth special, we see Lister reading to a memorial to Kochanski, with the implication being that she is dead. Later in the special, the kids Lister talks to on the bus talk about the events of "Series 9", which was never actually written, shot, or aired. They tell him that Kryten lied about Kochanski being sucked out of an airlock. The truth, according to the kids, is that she was tired of watching Lister wasting his life drinking and went off on her own in Blue Midget. Kryten told Lister she had died in order to spare his feelings (or perhaps because he was jealous of Lister's feelings for Kochanski). At the end of the Back To Earth specials, Lister resists the hallucinated Kochanski, saying that he knows that the real her is out there somewhere and that he intends to find her.  <sep>  Q: What happened to Kochanski between season 8 and 10 of Red Dwarf? A: At the beginning of the Back to Earth special, we see Lister reading to a memorial to Kochanski, with the implication being that she is dead  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did the others go?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I disagree that Mike isn't the sort of person who would entertain a name change like this. Mike is exactly the sort of person who would hear "I've changed my name to Saul" and shrug it off with a casual "Whatever," and then proceed to call him only Saul from then on. Mike is the kind of guy who does the job he's asked to do and doesn't ask any questions that he doesn't need the answers to. As long as you play it straight, he will too. Refusing to call Jimmy "Saul" would potentially disrupt any shady dealings they were involved in together, if third parties only knew the name Saul. It would also be an indiscretion to casually blow Saul's cover by calling him Jimmy just because Mike knows his real name. Of all the characters seen in either show, Mike is the most discreet and conscientious of the sensitive nature of the illegal operations these people so often find themselves embroiled in. Unless he had a good reason NOT to call Jimmy "Saul," I believe he would do so without batting an eyelash.  <sep>  Q: Why does Mike call Jimmy "Saul"?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I disagree that Mike isn't the sort of person who would entertain a name change like this. Mike is exactly the sort of person who would hear "I've changed my name to Saul" and shrug it off with a casual "Whatever," and then proceed to call him only Saul from then on. Mike is the kind of guy who does the job he's asked to do and doesn't ask any questions that he doesn't need the answers to. As long as you play it straight, he will too. Refusing to call Jimmy "Saul" would potentially disrupt any shady dealings they were involved in together, if third parties only knew the name Saul. It would also be an indiscretion to casually blow Saul's cover by calling him Jimmy just because Mike knows his real name. Of all the characters seen in either show, Mike is the most discreet and conscientious of the sensitive nature of the illegal operations these people so often find themselves embroiled in. Unless he had a good reason NOT to call Jimmy "Saul," I believe he would do so without batting an eyelash.  <sep>  Q: Why does Mike call Jimmy "Saul"? A: Mike is exactly the sort of person who would hear "I've changed my name to Saul" and shrug it off with a casual "Whatever," and then proceed to call him only Saul from then on  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How did Mike know to call Jimmy by the alternate name?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I disagree that Mike isn't the sort of person who would entertain a name change like this. Mike is exactly the sort of person who would hear "I've changed my name to Saul" and shrug it off with a casual "Whatever," and then proceed to call him only Saul from then on. Mike is the kind of guy who does the job he's asked to do and doesn't ask any questions that he doesn't need the answers to. As long as you play it straight, he will too. Refusing to call Jimmy "Saul" would potentially disrupt any shady dealings they were involved in together, if third parties only knew the name Saul. It would also be an indiscretion to casually blow Saul's cover by calling him Jimmy just because Mike knows his real name. Of all the characters seen in either show, Mike is the most discreet and conscientious of the sensitive nature of the illegal operations these people so often find themselves embroiled in. Unless he had a good reason NOT to call Jimmy "Saul," I believe he would do so without batting an eyelash.  <sep>  Q: Why does Mike call Jimmy "Saul"? A: Mike is exactly the sort of person who would hear "I've changed my name to Saul" and shrug it off with a casual "Whatever," and then proceed to call him only Saul from then on  Q: How did Mike know to call Jimmy by the alternate name? A: I've changed my name to Saul  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did Jimmy change his name?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I disagree that Mike isn't the sort of person who would entertain a name change like this. Mike is exactly the sort of person who would hear "I've changed my name to Saul" and shrug it off with a casual "Whatever," and then proceed to call him only Saul from then on. Mike is the kind of guy who does the job he's asked to do and doesn't ask any questions that he doesn't need the answers to. As long as you play it straight, he will too. Refusing to call Jimmy "Saul" would potentially disrupt any shady dealings they were involved in together, if third parties only knew the name Saul. It would also be an indiscretion to casually blow Saul's cover by calling him Jimmy just because Mike knows his real name. Of all the characters seen in either show, Mike is the most discreet and conscientious of the sensitive nature of the illegal operations these people so often find themselves embroiled in. Unless he had a good reason NOT to call Jimmy "Saul," I believe he would do so without batting an eyelash.  <sep>  Q: Why does Mike call Jimmy "Saul"? A: Mike is exactly the sort of person who would hear "I've changed my name to Saul" and shrug it off with a casual "Whatever," and then proceed to call him only Saul from then on  Q: How did Mike know to call Jimmy by the alternate name? A: I've changed my name to Saul  Q: Why did Jimmy change his name? A: discreet and conscientious of the sensitive nature of the illegal operations  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Cool, is there anything else you can tell me?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I disagree that Mike isn't the sort of person who would entertain a name change like this. Mike is exactly the sort of person who would hear "I've changed my name to Saul" and shrug it off with a casual "Whatever," and then proceed to call him only Saul from then on. Mike is the kind of guy who does the job he's asked to do and doesn't ask any questions that he doesn't need the answers to. As long as you play it straight, he will too. Refusing to call Jimmy "Saul" would potentially disrupt any shady dealings they were involved in together, if third parties only knew the name Saul. It would also be an indiscretion to casually blow Saul's cover by calling him Jimmy just because Mike knows his real name. Of all the characters seen in either show, Mike is the most discreet and conscientious of the sensitive nature of the illegal operations these people so often find themselves embroiled in. Unless he had a good reason NOT to call Jimmy "Saul," I believe he would do so without batting an eyelash.  <sep>  Q: Why does Mike call Jimmy "Saul"? A: Mike is exactly the sort of person who would hear "I've changed my name to Saul" and shrug it off with a casual "Whatever," and then proceed to call him only Saul from then on  Q: How did Mike know to call Jimmy by the alternate name? A: I've changed my name to Saul  Q: Why did Jimmy change his name? A: discreet and conscientious of the sensitive nature of the illegal operations  Q: Cool, is there anything else you can tell me? A: Refusing to call Jimmy "Saul" would potentially disrupt any shady dealings they were involved in together  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I understand. Is there anything else?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I disagree that Mike isn't the sort of person who would entertain a name change like this. Mike is exactly the sort of person who would hear "I've changed my name to Saul" and shrug it off with a casual "Whatever," and then proceed to call him only Saul from then on. Mike is the kind of guy who does the job he's asked to do and doesn't ask any questions that he doesn't need the answers to. As long as you play it straight, he will too. Refusing to call Jimmy "Saul" would potentially disrupt any shady dealings they were involved in together, if third parties only knew the name Saul. It would also be an indiscretion to casually blow Saul's cover by calling him Jimmy just because Mike knows his real name. Of all the characters seen in either show, Mike is the most discreet and conscientious of the sensitive nature of the illegal operations these people so often find themselves embroiled in. Unless he had a good reason NOT to call Jimmy "Saul," I believe he would do so without batting an eyelash.  <sep>  Q: Why does Mike call Jimmy "Saul"? A: Mike is exactly the sort of person who would hear "I've changed my name to Saul" and shrug it off with a casual "Whatever," and then proceed to call him only Saul from then on  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is it a plot hole?
Output: No
CONTEXT: My guess is that it was relevant only at that particular moment. It was an expression of humans' attitude towards Clark. Just like criminals who are not accepted as 'normal' members of a society and stay behind bars in prisons or lines in this particular case, and treated differently from the rest of the society, Clark was also a stranger, an alien whose intentions or nature wasn't fully understood, so seeing 'behind the line' phrase behind Clark bears that symbolism in my opinion. So you can guess that he would be handed over to Zod. Also note - if we continue our analogy with criminals - that he hasn't been tried/appeared before a judge yet. People see him later in action, and he is judged by his actions, and afterwards accepted as an ally i.e. acquitted. And the reason it was painted over maybe because the rest of the phrase was irrelevant, and also if it said detainees - he is not really a detainee, wasn't detained, he surrendered. Or maybe because they couldn't really detain him, he ripped handcuffs off with ease.  <sep>  Q: What is the full phrase painted over on the ground and its purpose?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: My guess is that it was relevant only at that particular moment. It was an expression of humans' attitude towards Clark. Just like criminals who are not accepted as 'normal' members of a society and stay behind bars in prisons or lines in this particular case, and treated differently from the rest of the society, Clark was also a stranger, an alien whose intentions or nature wasn't fully understood, so seeing 'behind the line' phrase behind Clark bears that symbolism in my opinion. So you can guess that he would be handed over to Zod. Also note - if we continue our analogy with criminals - that he hasn't been tried/appeared before a judge yet. People see him later in action, and he is judged by his actions, and afterwards accepted as an ally i.e. acquitted. And the reason it was painted over maybe because the rest of the phrase was irrelevant, and also if it said detainees - he is not really a detainee, wasn't detained, he surrendered. Or maybe because they couldn't really detain him, he ripped handcuffs off with ease.  <sep>  Q: What is the full phrase painted over on the ground and its purpose? A: My guess is that it was relevant only at that particular moment  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What do you think the full phrase is?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: My guess is that it was relevant only at that particular moment. It was an expression of humans' attitude towards Clark. Just like criminals who are not accepted as 'normal' members of a society and stay behind bars in prisons or lines in this particular case, and treated differently from the rest of the society, Clark was also a stranger, an alien whose intentions or nature wasn't fully understood, so seeing 'behind the line' phrase behind Clark bears that symbolism in my opinion. So you can guess that he would be handed over to Zod. Also note - if we continue our analogy with criminals - that he hasn't been tried/appeared before a judge yet. People see him later in action, and he is judged by his actions, and afterwards accepted as an ally i.e. acquitted. And the reason it was painted over maybe because the rest of the phrase was irrelevant, and also if it said detainees - he is not really a detainee, wasn't detained, he surrendered. Or maybe because they couldn't really detain him, he ripped handcuffs off with ease.  <sep>  Q: What is the full phrase painted over on the ground and its purpose? A: My guess is that it was relevant only at that particular moment  Q: What do you think the full phrase is? A: It was an expression of humans' attitude towards Clark  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did they feel towards Clark?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: My guess is that it was relevant only at that particular moment. It was an expression of humans' attitude towards Clark. Just like criminals who are not accepted as 'normal' members of a society and stay behind bars in prisons or lines in this particular case, and treated differently from the rest of the society, Clark was also a stranger, an alien whose intentions or nature wasn't fully understood, so seeing 'behind the line' phrase behind Clark bears that symbolism in my opinion. So you can guess that he would be handed over to Zod. Also note - if we continue our analogy with criminals - that he hasn't been tried/appeared before a judge yet. People see him later in action, and he is judged by his actions, and afterwards accepted as an ally i.e. acquitted. And the reason it was painted over maybe because the rest of the phrase was irrelevant, and also if it said detainees - he is not really a detainee, wasn't detained, he surrendered. Or maybe because they couldn't really detain him, he ripped handcuffs off with ease.  <sep>  Q: What is the full phrase painted over on the ground and its purpose? A: My guess is that it was relevant only at that particular moment  Q: What do you think the full phrase is? A: It was an expression of humans' attitude towards Clark  Q: What did they feel towards Clark? A: Just like criminals who are not accepted as 'normal' members of a society and stay behind bars in prisons or lines in this particular case, and treated differently from the rest of the society  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How did Clark treat them differently?
Output: No
CONTEXT: My guess is that it was relevant only at that particular moment. It was an expression of humans' attitude towards Clark. Just like criminals who are not accepted as 'normal' members of a society and stay behind bars in prisons or lines in this particular case, and treated differently from the rest of the society, Clark was also a stranger, an alien whose intentions or nature wasn't fully understood, so seeing 'behind the line' phrase behind Clark bears that symbolism in my opinion. So you can guess that he would be handed over to Zod. Also note - if we continue our analogy with criminals - that he hasn't been tried/appeared before a judge yet. People see him later in action, and he is judged by his actions, and afterwards accepted as an ally i.e. acquitted. And the reason it was painted over maybe because the rest of the phrase was irrelevant, and also if it said detainees - he is not really a detainee, wasn't detained, he surrendered. Or maybe because they couldn't really detain him, he ripped handcuffs off with ease.  <sep>  Q: What is the full phrase painted over on the ground and its purpose? A: My guess is that it was relevant only at that particular moment  Q: What do you think the full phrase is? A: It was an expression of humans' attitude towards Clark  Q: What did they feel towards Clark? A: Just like criminals who are not accepted as 'normal' members of a society and stay behind bars in prisons or lines in this particular case, and treated differently from the rest of the society  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why does Clark surrender?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I believe that you are thinking of Superman 2. The villains (General Zod, Ursa and Non) had been banished from Krypton into the "Phantom Zone" which was depicted as what looked similar to a plane of glass that flew through space. Right up until Superman pushes a nuclear bomb out of Earth's atmosphere and into space to save Paris (I think). When the device explodes it breaks open the Phantom Zone and releases the villains. Here is clip of there release on Youtube:  <sep>  Q: What was that movie where the bad guys are trapped in a 2d plane in space
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I believe that you are thinking of Superman 2. The villains (General Zod, Ursa and Non) had been banished from Krypton into the "Phantom Zone" which was depicted as what looked similar to a plane of glass that flew through space. Right up until Superman pushes a nuclear bomb out of Earth's atmosphere and into space to save Paris (I think). When the device explodes it breaks open the Phantom Zone and releases the villains. Here is clip of there release on Youtube:  <sep>  Q: What was that movie where the bad guys are trapped in a 2d plane in space A: I believe that you are thinking of Superman 2  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are you sure this is Superman 2?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I believe that you are thinking of Superman 2. The villains (General Zod, Ursa and Non) had been banished from Krypton into the "Phantom Zone" which was depicted as what looked similar to a plane of glass that flew through space. Right up until Superman pushes a nuclear bomb out of Earth's atmosphere and into space to save Paris (I think). When the device explodes it breaks open the Phantom Zone and releases the villains. Here is clip of there release on Youtube:  <sep>  Q: What was that movie where the bad guys are trapped in a 2d plane in space A: I believe that you are thinking of Superman 2  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why do you think this is Superman 2?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I believe that you are thinking of Superman 2. The villains (General Zod, Ursa and Non) had been banished from Krypton into the "Phantom Zone" which was depicted as what looked similar to a plane of glass that flew through space. Right up until Superman pushes a nuclear bomb out of Earth's atmosphere and into space to save Paris (I think). When the device explodes it breaks open the Phantom Zone and releases the villains. Here is clip of there release on Youtube:  <sep>  Q: What was that movie where the bad guys are trapped in a 2d plane in space A: I believe that you are thinking of Superman 2  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did family Guy do a parody of this too?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The short answer is that Mann isn't a highly trained astronaut, he's a ground-based theoretical physicist who volunteered to lead this last-ditch mission. His knowledge of space flight is limited to a single mission and his training was done on the cheap by flight controllers who themselves haven't ever been into space. It's clear that he doesn't recognise the danger. He ignores Coop's verbal warning as well as the master alarm, something a real astronaut would never ever do. On top of that, he seems to be displaying major symptoms of mental illness; paranoia, psychosis and disassociation, all things that would be likely to lead to impaired judgement.  <sep>  Q: Why does Dr Mann act so stupidly?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The short answer is that Mann isn't a highly trained astronaut, he's a ground-based theoretical physicist who volunteered to lead this last-ditch mission. His knowledge of space flight is limited to a single mission and his training was done on the cheap by flight controllers who themselves haven't ever been into space. It's clear that he doesn't recognise the danger. He ignores Coop's verbal warning as well as the master alarm, something a real astronaut would never ever do. On top of that, he seems to be displaying major symptoms of mental illness; paranoia, psychosis and disassociation, all things that would be likely to lead to impaired judgement.  <sep>  Q: Why does Dr Mann act so stupidly? A: The short answer is that Mann isn't a highly trained astronaut  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is DR Mann an astronaut?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The short answer is that Mann isn't a highly trained astronaut, he's a ground-based theoretical physicist who volunteered to lead this last-ditch mission. His knowledge of space flight is limited to a single mission and his training was done on the cheap by flight controllers who themselves haven't ever been into space. It's clear that he doesn't recognise the danger. He ignores Coop's verbal warning as well as the master alarm, something a real astronaut would never ever do. On top of that, he seems to be displaying major symptoms of mental illness; paranoia, psychosis and disassociation, all things that would be likely to lead to impaired judgement.  <sep>  Q: Why does Dr Mann act so stupidly? A: The short answer is that Mann isn't a highly trained astronaut  Q: Is DR Mann an astronaut? A: Mann isn't a highly trained astronaut  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: WHen des Dr Mann try to escape?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The short answer is that Mann isn't a highly trained astronaut, he's a ground-based theoretical physicist who volunteered to lead this last-ditch mission. His knowledge of space flight is limited to a single mission and his training was done on the cheap by flight controllers who themselves haven't ever been into space. It's clear that he doesn't recognise the danger. He ignores Coop's verbal warning as well as the master alarm, something a real astronaut would never ever do. On top of that, he seems to be displaying major symptoms of mental illness; paranoia, psychosis and disassociation, all things that would be likely to lead to impaired judgement.  <sep>  Q: Why does Dr Mann act so stupidly? A: The short answer is that Mann isn't a highly trained astronaut  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How does Dr Mann try to escape?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Because Jessica trusts Justin Foley way more then Hannah Baker. And Justin Foley lied to her and made her believe Hannah is liar and remember that many of other people from tape tried to prove Hannah liar too. So who will Jessica trust, her boyfriend or a dead girl she had bad tuning with? Easy choice, boyfriend.  <sep>  Q: Why did Jessica not believe the tape which mentioned her rape?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Because Jessica trusts Justin Foley way more then Hannah Baker. And Justin Foley lied to her and made her believe Hannah is liar and remember that many of other people from tape tried to prove Hannah liar too. So who will Jessica trust, her boyfriend or a dead girl she had bad tuning with? Easy choice, boyfriend.  <sep>  Q: Why did Jessica not believe the tape which mentioned her rape? A: Because Jessica trusts Justin Foley way more then Hannah Baker  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did she hear Justin's tape?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Because Jessica trusts Justin Foley way more then Hannah Baker. And Justin Foley lied to her and made her believe Hannah is liar and remember that many of other people from tape tried to prove Hannah liar too. So who will Jessica trust, her boyfriend or a dead girl she had bad tuning with? Easy choice, boyfriend.  <sep>  Q: Why did Jessica not believe the tape which mentioned her rape? A: Because Jessica trusts Justin Foley way more then Hannah Baker  Q: Did she hear Justin's tape? A: remember that many of other people from tape tried to prove Hannah liar too  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I see, is there anything else you could tell me?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Because Jessica trusts Justin Foley way more then Hannah Baker. And Justin Foley lied to her and made her believe Hannah is liar and remember that many of other people from tape tried to prove Hannah liar too. So who will Jessica trust, her boyfriend or a dead girl she had bad tuning with? Easy choice, boyfriend.  <sep>  Q: Why did Jessica not believe the tape which mentioned her rape? A: Because Jessica trusts Justin Foley way more then Hannah Baker  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did she still choose to hang around with Bryce even more?
Output: No
CONTEXT: A) They can't think of any other answers, so they don't want to lose any points they might earn in a steal by the other team. AND/OR B) They think it will be easier to steal the points from the other team than to get all of the points themselves.  <sep>  Q: When would a team pass on Family Feud?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: A) They can't think of any other answers, so they don't want to lose any points they might earn in a steal by the other team. AND/OR B) They think it will be easier to steal the points from the other team than to get all of the points themselves.  <sep>  Q: When would a team pass on Family Feud? A: They can't think of any other answers  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do they lose points for this?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: A) They can't think of any other answers, so they don't want to lose any points they might earn in a steal by the other team. AND/OR B) They think it will be easier to steal the points from the other team than to get all of the points themselves.  <sep>  Q: When would a team pass on Family Feud? A: They can't think of any other answers  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does this usually work in their favor?
Output: No
CONTEXT: A) They can't think of any other answers, so they don't want to lose any points they might earn in a steal by the other team. AND/OR B) They think it will be easier to steal the points from the other team than to get all of the points themselves.  <sep>  Q: When would a team pass on Family Feud? A: They can't think of any other answers  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are there disadvantages?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I haven't seen the film so I don't really know the context for the scene: But it sounds like he's talking about how uncomfortable dating is and how awkward sex can be. As a woman with long hair, it hurts a lot when someone pulls your hair and, when in the bedroom, it will happen occasionally, which takes a lot of the fun out of it... assuming it's not intentional... A guy can easily trap the girl's hair between his body and the mattress, preventing the girl from moving her head and yanking the hair if she's not aware it's trapped, causing pain.  <sep>  Q: What does you're on my hair signifies in Wedding Crashers?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I haven't seen the film so I don't really know the context for the scene: But it sounds like he's talking about how uncomfortable dating is and how awkward sex can be. As a woman with long hair, it hurts a lot when someone pulls your hair and, when in the bedroom, it will happen occasionally, which takes a lot of the fun out of it... assuming it's not intentional... A guy can easily trap the girl's hair between his body and the mattress, preventing the girl from moving her head and yanking the hair if she's not aware it's trapped, causing pain.  <sep>  Q: What does you're on my hair signifies in Wedding Crashers? A: A guy can easily trap the girl's hair between his body and the mattress, preventing the girl from moving her head and yanking the hair  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: It means stop touching my hair. Do you have anything else to tell me?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I haven't seen the film so I don't really know the context for the scene: But it sounds like he's talking about how uncomfortable dating is and how awkward sex can be. As a woman with long hair, it hurts a lot when someone pulls your hair and, when in the bedroom, it will happen occasionally, which takes a lot of the fun out of it... assuming it's not intentional... A guy can easily trap the girl's hair between his body and the mattress, preventing the girl from moving her head and yanking the hair if she's not aware it's trapped, causing pain.  <sep>  Q: What does you're on my hair signifies in Wedding Crashers? A: A guy can easily trap the girl's hair between his body and the mattress, preventing the girl from moving her head and yanking the hair  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Any idea what it means in Chinese?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I haven't seen the film so I don't really know the context for the scene: But it sounds like he's talking about how uncomfortable dating is and how awkward sex can be. As a woman with long hair, it hurts a lot when someone pulls your hair and, when in the bedroom, it will happen occasionally, which takes a lot of the fun out of it... assuming it's not intentional... A guy can easily trap the girl's hair between his body and the mattress, preventing the girl from moving her head and yanking the hair if she's not aware it's trapped, causing pain.  <sep>  Q: What does you're on my hair signifies in Wedding Crashers? A: A guy can easily trap the girl's hair between his body and the mattress, preventing the girl from moving her head and yanking the hair  Q: It means stop touching my hair. Do you have anything else to tell me? A: As a woman with long hair, it hurts a lot when someone pulls your hair and, when in the bedroom, i  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why not just put it in pigtails?
Output: No
CONTEXT: There are two main "themes" in the book; Sex and Revenge. When you're in prison, those are about the only two things you think about. I was incarcerated for 5 years (well, just short of that, actually), and when you're not busy watching your back you're pretty much daydreaming of those two things. I can't say either of them were the most popular book in the library, but I can see where that dialogue came from.  <sep>  Q: What is the obvious reason "The Other Side of Midnight" is a popular book in prison?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: There are two main "themes" in the book; Sex and Revenge. When you're in prison, those are about the only two things you think about. I was incarcerated for 5 years (well, just short of that, actually), and when you're not busy watching your back you're pretty much daydreaming of those two things. I can't say either of them were the most popular book in the library, but I can see where that dialogue came from.  <sep>  Q: What is the obvious reason "The Other Side of Midnight" is a popular book in prison? A: two main "themes" in the book; Sex and Revenge. When you're in prison, those are about the only two things you think about  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: The most relevant thing to prison or the justice system seems to be that at the end, the woman and the pilot plead guilty to murder
Output: No
CONTEXT: How would you know what he tried, if asteriscs were shown instead of the real password? As stated in comments: it would not be funny at all without actually showing the password. By the way, this is a common trope when showing someone guessing passwords, not only when making jokes about it...  <sep>  Q: Why is it showing characters instead of dots while loggin in?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: How would you know what he tried, if asteriscs were shown instead of the real password? As stated in comments: it would not be funny at all without actually showing the password. By the way, this is a common trope when showing someone guessing passwords, not only when making jokes about it...  <sep>  Q: Why is it showing characters instead of dots while loggin in? A: By the way, this is a common trope when showing someone guessing passwords, not only when making jokes about it  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Ned Fleming is trying to log into Laird Mayherw's computer but can't do you know why?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: How would you know what he tried, if asteriscs were shown instead of the real password? As stated in comments: it would not be funny at all without actually showing the password. By the way, this is a common trope when showing someone guessing passwords, not only when making jokes about it...  <sep>  Q: Why is it showing characters instead of dots while loggin in? A: By the way, this is a common trope when showing someone guessing passwords, not only when making jokes about it  Q: Ned Fleming is trying to log into Laird Mayherw's computer but can't do you know why? A: asteriscs were shown instead of the real password  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: A random password such as stephaniesboobs was entered but it's showing dots instead ?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: How would you know what he tried, if asteriscs were shown instead of the real password? As stated in comments: it would not be funny at all without actually showing the password. By the way, this is a common trope when showing someone guessing passwords, not only when making jokes about it...  <sep>  Q: Why is it showing password while logging in?
Output: No